VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

173 of PB No. 2] If the Appellant was engaged in construction of the building and selling the same, they would not have taken the task of applying for operating and maintaining the I-T Park and getting the requisite approvals. As a Trader, the Appellant would have only intended to construct and sell the property with the intention

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case are totally distinguishable

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case are totally distinguishable

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property which is vacant throughout the year shall be calculated as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act and further held non-applicability of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the same, held orders in the case of Shri Vikas Keshav Garud in ITA No. 747/PUN/2014 and in the case of Sonu

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

house and secondly, the new residential property was purchased before one year prior to the sale of original 5 asset. Admittedly, the sale consideration was paid prior to the one year before the sale of original asset. There is no bar under law to claim deduction simultaneously u/s,.54 and u/s.54F in respect of the same asset. The crucial fact

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

section 45: 4.2.1 On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the deduction is available only when the assessee has either constructed or purchased new property being a residential house within the prescribed time limit i.e. one year before or two/three years after as the case may be, from the date of transfer of the original

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

173 Taxman 458 (SC)  Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) (ITA No.2818/Ahd/2017) Findings and Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the assessment order it is observed that the Assessing Officer(AO) has not discussed anything in the assessment order, he has merely accepted the returned income. 5.1 We have also

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is allowed FOR STATISTCIAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 480/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; As Against First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-11, [‘Cit(A)’] Dt. 25/01/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’], For Assessment Year [‘Ay’] 2013-14, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal With The Following Grounds; “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit (A) -11, Pune In The Case Is Opposed To Establish Law & The Judicial Pronouncement.

House, 5th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 PAN: AAIFP0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the assessee paid the consideration through cheques

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

house property, income from business and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,01,810. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. C & M Farming Ltd. (C&M Group cases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

173, Navi Peth, 2nd Floor, of Income Tax, Saraswati Bhavan, M.G. Road, Vs. Circle -1, Jalgaon Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AAQPM9214J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Department by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 24-10-2024 Date of 29-11-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

173 6,07,100 1,50,00,480 1,66,000 10,40,44,752 18. Similarly, for assessment year 2019-20 the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2024 has adopted the profit @ 5% on the bogus / untested purchases of Rs.17,49,83,488/- wherein M/s. Divya Enterprises Prop. Sagar Suraj Agrawal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

173\n6,07,100\n1,50,00,480\n1,66,000\n10,40,44,752\n18. Similarly, for assessment year 2019-20 the Assessing Officer in the order\npassed u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) dated 28.03.2024 has adopted the profit @ 5% on the\nbogus / untested purchases of Rs.17,49,83,488/- wherein M/s. Divya Enterprises\nProp. Sagar Suraj Agrawal

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

property does not arise. Even if it were received, in excess of the revenue already recognized in the yester years, the same should be automatically converted into revenue for the year and added to the taxable income for the A.Y. 2013-14 since as per your own statement, the project "CEREBRUM B3" is 100% complete. Therefore, it may have

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

property does not arise. Even if it were received, in excess of the revenue already recognized in the yester years, the same should be automatically converted into revenue for the year and added to the taxable income for the A.Y. 2013-14 since as per your own statement, the project "CEREBRUM B3" is 100% complete. Therefore, it may have